Was the Protestant Reformation, in a sense, good?

[rcwitness]

I believe in Jewish thought the answer is having both parents unconsecrated.

Ok, so we see a pattern her which is connected through the Sacraments.

Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved.”

The believing spouse, who is Baptized since it is a commandment from Christ - and those who love Him will keep His commandments ts, is consecrated . Then the bonds of Sacramental Matrimony extend the grace to the spouse. Then the children are able to be Baptized. Now, I don’t know whether Paul is implying that the children would be brought to Baptism. I believe so, but it’s obviously not specified.

But you said before, that children are already innocent even of Original sin. So why does St Paul mention children being “unclean”?
So whether the children are brought into saving grace through their parents belief, or even Baptism also, it’s clear that the faith of the parents extends to making the children “clean”.

And what would they be “dirty” of??? Original Sin.

 

[guanophore]

******* So then in the Catholic understanding does not the individual profession of faith in Christ (repentance ?) mean that person now “believeth in Him” ?

Yes. The baptismal vows are made by parents and Godparents as a pledge to raise the child in the faith, just as the Jews did when presenting their children in the temple.

*******Did not the Apostles instruct to repent, believe and be baptized? If all we have to do to be a Christian is be baptized then it seems a pretty easy road.

They taught that baptism is the beginning of discipleship. It is an easier road if one is martyrd immediately after baptism.

*******I have been taught that confessing the name of Jesus is more than reciting a creed in a service containing the body of believers. To confess the name of Jesus to the world at large inthe workplace and in all interacting and dealings not being ashamed of being identified with Him means He will also confess my name before the Father in heaven.

I would not dispute this application of the word, but in the Ancient Church, a profession of faith was made in secrecy, since Christianity was illegal for 300 years, and the faithful met privately, and were incognito.

*******I guess we have differing opinions. Yes, we are born with a sinful nature but how can the individual be responsible for that until he gets old enough to understand he even has one and then sees his need for a Redeemer?

One cannot, which is why infants are baptized.

Sin separates humans from God. All have sinned in Adam. All are born into the world separated from God slaves to the sin of Adam.

.******He was baptized upon his confession of faith at an early age. I am sure he had his moments not like many of us but rather like all of us including Polycarp.

The record indicates that he was a disciple of the Apostle John, who baptized him as an infant.

 ******This is my father's story as well, only difference is my father was baptized after he realized the need for personal repentance. How that is not Biblical baffles me.

It is not unbiblical. Neither is infant baptism. What is not biblical is the modern theologcial construct of the meaning of said baptism. The purpose of it is not a public commitment to the faith.

*******If a person can be saved by the “baptism of desire” what is dangerous about the practice sited above?

Mortal sin separates us from God, and we are all capable of it at any time.

*******Was he dealt with as a heretic? why not?

He was baptized on his deathbed. People who hold heretical ideas that are not members of the Body of Christ are not subject to the disciplines of the Church. Had he been baptized and continued to hold heretical believes, he would have then had to be dealt with as a heretic.

 

[Wannano]

Yes. The baptismal vows are made by parents and Godparents as a pledge to raise the child in the faith, just as the Jews did when presenting their children in the temple.

They taught that baptism is the beginning of discipleship. It is an easier road if one is martyrd immediately after baptism.

I would not dispute this application of the word, but in the Ancient Church, a profession of faith was made in secrecy, since Christianity was illegal for 300 years, and the faithful met privately, and were incognito.

One cannot, which is why infants are baptized.

Sin separates humans from God. All have sinned in Adam. All are born into the world separated from God slaves to the sin of Adam.

The record indicates that he was a disciple of the Apostle John, who baptized him as an infant.

****I think I have asked too many questions…this quote referred to my father!

It is not unbiblical. Neither is infant baptism. What is not biblical is the modern theologcial construct of the meaning of said baptism. The purpose of it is not a public commitment to the faith.

******I agree that it is not the sole purpose of it.

Mortal sin separates us from God, and we are all capable of it at any time.

****** Unless you eat meat on Good Friday! I was the op on that thread and got all kinds of reasons why he would be ok…his desire was right, he had substantial observance, there is nothing wrong with eating meat etc. Etc!

He was baptized on his deathbed. People who hold heretical ideas that are not members of the Body of Christ are not subject to the disciplines of the Church. Had he been baptized and continued to hold heretical believes, he would have then had to be dealt with as a heretic.

I apologize Guano if I am driving you nuts, I promise to quit asking questions. I do however have to respond to your paragraph above. “People who hold heretical ideas that are not members of the Body of Christ are not subject to the disciplines of the Church.” Why is it then that so many people who were not members of the Catholic faith were put to death by order of the Church during the time of the Reformation and in some years previous?

 

[Wannano]

Ok, so we see a pattern her which is connected through the Sacraments.

Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is Baptized will be saved.”

The believing spouse, who is Baptized since it is a commandment from Christ - and those who love Him will keep His commandments ts, is consecrated . Then the bonds of Sacramental Matrimony extend the grace to the spouse. Then the children are able to be Baptized. Now, I don’t know whether Paul is implying that the children would be brought to Baptism. I believe so, but it’s obviously not specified.

But you said before, that children are already innocent even of Original sin. So why does St Paul mention children being “unclean”?
So whether the children are brought into saving grace through their parents belief, or even Baptism also, it’s clear that the faith of the parents extends to making the children “clean”.

And what would they be “dirty” of??? Original Sin.

Well read the preceeding two verses. Paul is talking about a situation where one spouse becomes a Christian and the other does not. I maybe wrong but I think Jewish law would say the marriage should be ended or put away as a partner not of the Jewish people would make the children illigetimate. Paul is instructing the Christian partner to stay with the spouse.

Does the Catholic Church ever annul a marriage that has produced children? Doesn’t the granted annulment mean that the marriage never was valid in the eyes of God? What does that do to the legitimacy of the children? Of course nowadays you do not hear of illigetimate children, it would not be politically correct I suppose.

 

[Wannano]

This is a good question, and I think makes a reference to some of the ritual cleansing frequently used by the Jews at the time. But Peter is saying that Baptism is not intended to be a bath for the purpose of becoming physically clean, but spiritually clean. Similar to what Paul writes

"But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, 5He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, 6whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,…Titus 3:5

Baptism is a washing with water that is spiritually rejenerative, becuase during it, the Holy Spirit circumcises the heart.

This is another good question. I think how this word is used must come from the roots of the preaching of John the Baptist.

1Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."…Matt. 3:1

The Gk. Μετανοεῖτε to change one’s mind (reverse course) is consistently used by Jesus, then by the apostles.

I know the word that seems to refer to ritual hand washing in Heb. 9:10 is also βαπτισμοῖς,

Christian baptism has always been described using the word βαπτίζει (baptizei)

Matthew 3:6
Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River.(ἐβαπτίζοντο)

Guano, I am thinking you may have missed #241. Thanks

 

[susanlo]

And yet Colossians 2 directly compares circumcision to baptism, and also shows that baptism regenerates:

“In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, HAVING BEEN BURIED WITH HIM IN BAPTISM and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Colossians 2:11-12; NIV)

This is speaking of a metaphorical circumcision. It is about dying to sin, when one goes into the “watery grave” and is raised into a new life. I don’t think he is saying that this is a replacement for circumcision, but using it as an example.

This passage clearly addresses converts.

But where is the section where they give instructions for the young children of the household? How do we know that they were baptized too?

Great. Please post it.

Here is another source.
Justin Martyr’s First Apology
“CHAPTER LXI – CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.”
(2nd paragraph quoted)
“And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”
“CHAPTER LXV – ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus** washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching**, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

Also, I could add - Ambrose “On the Mysteries”"
“The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

His instructions on baptism as well as Cyril of Jerusalem’s writing on Mysteries have precursors to baptism like confessions of faith and renouncing the devil. There are no exceptions for children unable to do this on their own.
I do see some of this later in the writings of Augustine where there are exceptions made for infants.

 

[rcwitness]

Btw, is all this infant baptism debate to say that the reformation brought believers out of the error of infant baptism?

 

[Wannano]

Btw, is all this infant baptism debate to say that the reformation brought believers out of the error of infant baptism?

 

[Wannano]

Btw, is all this infant baptism debate to say that the reformation brought believers out of the error of infant baptism?

Unless I am misunderstanding your question I would answer that I do not think a consequence of the Reformation was bringing believers out of the error of infant baptism.

 

[rcwitness]

Unless I am misunderstanding your question I would answer that I do not think a consequence of the Reformation was bringing believers out of the error of infant baptism.

Ok. I have no problem discussing it, especially because we brought our two children to Baptism.

But why are we discussing it here? Shouldn’t we be discussing what did come out of the Reformation?

 

[Wannano]

Ok. I have no problem discussing it, especially because we brought our two children to Baptism.

But why are we discussing it here? Shouldn’t we be discussing what did come out of the Reformation?

We are discussing that in a sense the Reformation was good. That is the op I think. One of the good things is that Catholics and non-catholics are talking and discussing. As far as adult baptism only belief, I think the Reformation did bring to the forefront knowledge that not all people agreed with infant baptism. The fact that they were not allowed to practice their belief in peace and we’re instead martyred for their belief only served to fuel their cause. A result is not most of Christendom abandoning infant baptism ,but giving solidarity to those who oppose it and obtaining freedom to practice an adult only belief.

I think another good from the Reformation is that now Christians seem to be realizing that Jesus never did, never will, condone the use of violence and murder to advance His kingdom.

 

[rcwitness]

We are discussing that in a sense the Reformation was good. That is the op I think. One of the good things is that Catholics and non-catholics are talking and discussing.

I think that is very good. Was this not practiced before the Reformation? We should distinguish “talking” and “discussing” from things like “rejecting” “preaching”, right?

As far as adult baptism only belief, I think the Reformation did bring to the forefront knowledge that not all people agreed with infant baptism.

I think there has always been an awareness that people disagree about almost everything.

The fact that they were not allowed to practice their belief in peace and we’re instead martyred for their belief only served to fuel their cause. A result is not most of Christendom abandoning infant baptism ,but giving solidarity to those who oppose it and obtaining freedom to practice an adult only belief.

I’m not sure that Christians were forced to Baptize their children. That’s different than condemning the doctrine that children cannot be Baptized.

I think another good from the Reformation is that now Christians seem to be realizing that Jesus never did, never will, condone the use of violence and murder to advance His kingdom.

Murder is not the same as a punishment by death. But I tend to agree with you. Obviously Annas and his wife were killed for their sin.

 

[guanophore]

This is speaking of a metaphorical circumcision. It is about dying to sin, when one goes into the “watery grave” and is raised into a new life. I don’t think he is saying that this is a replacement for circumcision, but using it as an example.

I think he is speaking of a literal circumcision here. Translating literally does not mean it is a material reality. For example, angels are literally real, though they don’t have a physical presence. The circumcision made without (physical hands) by the HS upon the heart of the baptized literally takes place.

Christians understood that the circumucision of the heart had replaced the physical circumcision as an entrance rite into the New Covenant.

But where is the section where they give instructions for the young children of the household? How do we know that they were baptized too?

Honestly, if you converted, and your whole household with you, why would you not include your children? How can we possibly imagine any Jews of that day not including their children. Even with the Greeks, the custom was for the whole house to follow the choice of the Master, including the slaves.

I think it gets back to whether baptism was understood to replace circumcision. If this is how the Apostles understood it, there would be no reason to withhold it from children.

 Here is another source.

Justin Martyr’s First Apology
“CHAPTER LXI – CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.”
(2nd paragraph quoted)
“And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the layer the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”
“CHAPTER LXV – ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS.
But we, after we have thus** washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching**, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation.”
earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html

We certainly accept that baptism of adults and those who have reached the age of reason certainly did occur, and does occur. Remember that this writing of Justin Martyr was not intended to be a full compendium of the faith, but an explanation to the emperor of the practices for which Christians were commonly accused, including “atheism, eating their God and drowning their infants”

Also, I could add - Ambrose “On the Mysteries”"
“The baptism of unbelievers heals not but pollutes.”
newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm

His instructions on baptism as well as Cyril of Jerusalem’s writing on Mysteries have precursors to baptism like confessions of faith and renouncing the devil. There are no exceptions for children unable to do this on their own.
I do see some of this later in the writings of Augustine where there are exceptions made for infants.

Yes these are the early rites of baptism that are still followed today, received from the Church. Most infants and children were carried with their parents into the water, so thus the children were not expected to make their own profession of faith.

 

[guanophore]

More from Church Fathers

Irenaeus (120-202 A.D.), wrote the following:

“He came to save all through Himself-all I say, who through Him are reborn in God-infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age, and at the same time becoming for them an example of piety, of righteousness, and of submission; a young man for youths, becoming an example for youths and sanctifying them for the Lord.”

Here we read that Jesus Christ came that all might be reborn in God. “How can an infant be reborn if he cannot believe?” a person may ask. I ask in return, “How can an infant be reborn if his Christian parents have refrained from baptizing him?” Is a child who has not reached the “age of accountability/reason” not reborn until he reaches the age of thirteen when he then needs to be reborn?

Origen's (185-254 A.D.)

“For what is sin? Could a child who has only just been born commit a sin? And yet he has sin for which it is commanded to offer a sacrifice, as Job 14:4ff and Psalm 51:5-7 show. For this reason the Church received from the Apostles the tradition to administer baptism to the children also. For the men to whom the secrets of divine mysteries had been entrusted knew that in everyone there were genuine sinful defilements, which had to be washed away with water and the Spirit.”

In his Homily on Luke, Origen again refers to infant baptism:

“Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. What sins? Whenever have they sinned? In fact, of course, never. And yet: ‘No one is free from defilement.’ (Job 14:4) But defilement is only put away by the mystery of baptism. That is the reason why infants too are baptized.”

Hippolytus' (170-236 A.D.)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.”

The most significant controversy we find about infant baptism was one of the main elements of the council of Carthage. Cyprian, a leading bishop of North Africa, convened a synod of sixty-six bishops at Carthage to discuss whether or not they felt that infant baptism should be delayed until the eighth day after birth instead of the usual second or third day. Their unanimous decision upheld the universally accepted practice which they had always followed.

I respect that you are going back to original sources. I must apologize that I am using Logos software to access the Writings. I have tried to find sufficient web links so you can see some of the sources.

 

[Abu]

Wannano #252
One of the good things is that Catholics and non-catholics are talking and discussing.

That is NOT a “good thing”’ of the Revolt, but instead a dawning realization of the errors of the revolt.

I think another good from the Reformation is that now Christians seem to be realizing that Jesus never did, never will, condone the use of violence and murder to advance
His kingdom.

That did not come from the Protestant Revolt.

“1064. But the history of your Church is one of excessive torture, unparalleled cruelty and injustice.
You have read garbled accounts. No one denies the existence of cruelty and persecution in the history of the ages. But they have been exaggerated. Nor were they due to the Catholic point of view. They were in spite of the Catholic viewpoint, and due to the imperfect notions of the times, times in which Protestants were not less cruel than Catholics. My own course of reading as a Protestant bred in me the same repugnance for the Catholic Church as you now experience. I dreaded and hated the Church as a monstrous thing. Yet to-day I accept her as my mother, realizing that she has been caricatured by misunderstanding and misinformed writers. And over twenty years of association with the Catholic Church have only served to deepen my appreciation of her rational foundations, principles, and spirit.”
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=persecution&db=1

 

[guanophore]

I apologize Guano if I am driving you nuts,

On the contrary, Baptism is one of my favorite subjects.

I promise to quit asking questions.

I hope not. If this happened, the purpose of CAFwould be ruined!

 ****I think I have asked too many questions...this quote referred to my father!

No, the problem is the formatting. It is hard to tell which texts belong to you.

******I agree that it is not the sole purpose of it.

You mentioned several, none of which I think are part of what we received from the Apostles.

 ****** Unless you eat meat on Good Friday! I was the op on that thread and got all kinds of reasons why he would be ok....his desire was right, he had substantial observance, there is nothing wrong with eating meat etc. Etc!

It is important to understand what is meant by the Apostolic teaching of “deadly sin”.

I do however have to respond to your paragraph above. “People who hold heretical ideas that are not members of the Body of Christ are not subject to the disciplines of the Church.” Why is it then that so many people who were not members of the Catholic faith were put to death by order of the Church during the time of the Reformation and in some years previous?

This is a very good question. I am onot sure that there were any people who were not considered members of the Catholic faith. It was the State religion in most of the civlised world for over a millenia.

At the time of the Reformation, there was a conflation of secular and spiritual authority, such that those persons censured or condemned by the Church were also considered treasonous to the realm. The civil authorities might banish them or put them to death if the Church did not discipline them. The Inqusition was created to give the accused a forum and attempt to protect them from the civil penalties that would often occur without trial of evidence (only on the basis of accusation).

Perhaps if you have specific examples we could explore them?

 

[susanlo]

I’m not sure that Christians were forced to Baptize their children. That’s different than condemning the doctrine that children cannot be Baptized.

They were persecuted for not baptizing their children. It was the law that they had to be baptized and it was a capital offense to baptize an adult who was baptized as an infant.

 

[Wannano]

I think that is very good. Was this not practiced before the Reformation? We should distinguish “talking” and “discussing” from things like “rejecting” “preaching”, right?

I think there has always been an awareness that people disagree about almost everything.

I’m not sure that Christians were forced to Baptize their children. That’s different than condemning the doctrine that children cannot be Baptized.

Murder is not the same as a punishment by death. But I tend to agree with you. Obviously Annas and his wife were killed for their sin.

No doubt things are cooler on both sides of the fence. We need each other now more than we realize I think. Read from the book Martyrs Mirror, take a look through the eyes of someone who sees things differently. Don’t be immediately put off by the anti pope stuff, hey maybe they had good reason to not respect him?

I will see if I can find that people were forced to baptize their infants, trouble is I think that baptism of the infant also made them a citizen of the territory so not presenting your child was an act of treason…I think I have read that somewhere.

Who killed Annas and his wife?

 

[guanophore]

Well read the preceeding two verses. Paul is talking about a situation where one spouse becomes a Christian and the other does not. I maybe wrong but I think Jewish law would say the marriage should be ended or put away as a partner not of the Jewish people would make the children illigetimate. Paul is instructing the Christian partner to stay with the spouse.

This is true, but a Catholic parent has always been expected by the Church to raise any children according to the faith. Even if the spouse is Pagan, the Catholic parent is to make sure the children receive the Sacraments.

Does the Catholic Church ever annul a marriage that has produced children?

No. An annulment, by definition, is a ruling that a valid marriage never existed.

Doesn’t the granted annulment mean that the marriage never was valid in the eyes of God?

Correct.

What does that do to the legitimacy of the children? Of course nowadays you do not hear of illigetimate  children, it would not be politically correct I suppose.

Not anymore. During medieval times it did, but now it is no longer an issue whether a child was born in our out of the marriage bond. “Legitimacy” is a civil matter, not a spiritual one. The children are not affected legally in any way by a nullity decree. The civil marriage will still be seen as valid until there is a civil divorce.

 

[rcwitness]

They were persecuted for not baptizing their children. It was the law that they had to be baptized and it was a capital offense to baptize an adult who was baptized as an infant.

Can you show some evidence of this?